or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Waiststeering Bulldozer Turn
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Waiststeering Bulldozer Turn

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
I have purposely stayed out of the discussions on waiststeering until I had time to really digest what is being said. I had a feeling Waiststeering was going to result in my stick my pee-pee out there and getting it whacked. Waiststeering closely follows and compliments everything that I have been working on with the bulldozer turn for the last 4 years. As of now I endorse it 100%.

At the end of last year, through discussion here with nolo and Ric B, I had decided that movements are at the feet but efficient control from ski to ski and guiding primarily comes from the core. I cannot blow holes in anything Gary has said and he has filled in some missing gaps in my thinking.

I want to thank Gary for breaking the ice on this. I did not want to say that “Control and Steering comes from the Core”. I wanted to lilly liver tip-toe around it and never use the words for fear of bringing down the PMTS, PSIA house on top of me. Consider me out of the closet.

I do not come from a racing background such as Gary but came to a similar conclusion for “efficient control of when and where you want to go”. Indeed, Waiststeering is at the heart and soul of my “Bulldozer Turn” and is the core concept behind my mogul clinics.

Moguls are not that much different from racing through gates. Both the gates and the moguls dictate when and where to turn and both are very unforgiving of mistakes. Waiststeering/Bulldozer turning keeps the CM up over and in tune with what the feet are doing.

A bulldozer turns a perfect parallel turn by using braking on the inside track and allowing the outside track to run slightly faster. Similarly, the body core as used in Waiststeering, allows for dosiflexion of the ankles and a subsequent tipping of the inside ski to its little toe edge. This sets up a very slight braking action on the inside ski tip. Continued control through the core/waist controls the coordination between the inside ski and the outside ski, allowing the outside ski to run faster . The result is a faster tighter turn with less needed angulation for a given turn.

In moguls this means tight even turns with the feet apart and the CM up over the feet. In gates this means you can turn tighter and faster for a given angulation. Once a racer maxes out on angulation and CM placement, they can turn no tighter. With Waiststeering that turn will be tighter and faster at the same max angulation.

Again, thanks Gary Dranow, nolo and Ric B.
post #2 of 36

Go Bulldozer Turns

Pierre,

I am glad you are out of the closet! I will sleep better tonight.

Ever since I started following the discussion on Waiststeering I was trying to figure out how it was different from what I have been been doing in my own skiing ever since that visit with you last February. Only you did not call it "waiststeering." Frankly, I do not recall your using the term "Bulldozer turn" either. But my memory might fail me. We did discuss the movement, though. I added it to my turns there, at Snow Trails, for the first time, and you said it looked that I got it right away. Do you recall?

At first, I was rather sceptical about its value, (similar to your ideas of skiing bumps without poles or backwards-I still have to see you ski them backwards). Later, however, I started bringing my outside arm and guiding the core and the outside hip (not the waist- I do not think you talked about waist, did you?) progressively during the turn all the time, and it felt and looked better. Whenever I demonstrated the movement to someone who knows you, I have been giving credit to you. Frankly, I did not think of it as innovative, just good (correct) skiing. Besides me, it has helped a few of my friends and students.

To prove the point that it looks just like good skiing, I can tell you what happened today. As you might know, I just started teaching at Keystone this season. In the end of the day (after the third straight full day of teaching Level 1 (never-evers),http://forums.epicski.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ) I needed a fix badly. They had just removed the training gates on the Flying Dutchman, and I had a blast making my usual turns on that hero snow left around the course. When I stopped at the bottom of the course to talk to some of the coaches who were standing there, looking up against the sun, waiting for someone, they said that they had thought that one of the NORAM guys (who are here now) was freeskiing. I was very flattered, of course, but this only goes to prove that those super-dynamic carving turns that I am making using "your" movement look just like "good skiing".

I want to take this opportunity to thank you ( which I should have done long ago) for the "little" tip you gave me that day(or the way I understood it), the tip that has helped me get better. Whether it is the same movement as Waiststeering (at least in my interpretation) or not, I am still not sure, but whatever it is, it works. I really would like to see that Waiststeering alive some day soon and make the necessary adjustments.

Although I am not from Missouri (and not really from Ohio), I will still have to see if it is applicable in the bumps, as you say, too.

Thanks again, and good luck with your Bulldozer turns,

AE
post #3 of 36

Core vs. Waist

The terms "core" and "waist" do not
necessarily have to reflect two different
parts of the body.

"Core" is basically an overused word.
As it relates to the body, its only dictionary
definition relevant to kinesiology is:

"The basic or most important part; the essence."

Almost all other definitions of core have to
do with an internal, innermost section of
an object, such as an apple core. A former
USST coach defined core for me as:
"the midsection of the body from the bottom
of the ribs down to the hips" (meaning the
hip joints).

However you define "waist," it probably does
not carry the same meaning as the Chinese
word "yao." (Please see NUMBER FOUR in
"How To Practice Tai Chi Properly")
TaiChiSkiing talked about the waist as "the
back muscles." From my teacher, I think about
the waist as perhaps even higher than the
bottom of the ribs and lower than the hip joints
(but Tai Chi practice changes one's awareness).

Thus, the "Core" and the "Waist" are synonomous,
and can be used interchangably. Someone who
would want to argue otherwise simply has just
a more limited definition of one or the other.

Also, when one practices Tai Chi, the "waist"
becomes an internal component, more like
an apple core. Again, I point to muscles such
as the iliopsoas, rather than rectus abdominus
and the obliques, which are external.
post #4 of 36
Thread Starter 
I agree with TommyK. They are the same.
post #5 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyK
The terms "core" and "waist" do not necessarily have to reflect two different parts of the body.



Yes, they do; the "core" of our body is, intuitively, a body less the head and extremities (arms and legs), so it is the mass/trunk between the shoulder joints and hip joints, and being "supported" about only by these joints. The "core" is formed with two parts, around the ribcage, and the pelvis, which are connected at the "waist," so the "core" contains the "waist," where the "core" is holding the mass, and the "waist" provides it some movements. They serve different functions, so they mean different things.

Quote:
"Core" is basically an overused word.
As it relates to the body, its only dictionary
definition relevant to kinesiology is:

"The basic or most important part; the essence."
As the "core" contains the pelvis, which contains the CM/CoG and is moved without farther partition (i.e. as a single unit), it is safe to treat the idea of "core" as synonym to CM/CoG. Yes, the CoG, Center of Gravity, is the essence of our bodies, where Chinese call it "Dan-Tian."

Quote:
Almost all other definitions of core have to
do with an internal, innermost section of
an object, such as an apple core. A former
USST coach defined core for me as:
"the midsection of the body from the bottom
of the ribs down to the hips" (meaning the
hip joints).
The movement of the body "core" is to move the "trunk" (the body part between the hip joints and the shoulder joints) of the body less the "waist" movement (bending and/or twisting). To move the "core" is [for the purpose] to move CM/CoG; however, the bending or twisting the "waist" may or may not move the CoG.

Quote:
However you define "waist," it probably does
not carry the same meaning as the Chinese
word "yao." (Please see NUMBER FOUR in
"How To Practice Tai Chi Properly")
TaiChiSkiing talked about the waist as "the
back muscles."
Not really, what I said was to use the "back muscles" to do/perform the "controlled at waist" function, not the "iliopsoas" that you contented.

Quote:
From my teacher, I think about
the waist as perhaps even higher than the
bottom of the ribs and lower than the hip joints
(but Tai Chi practice changes one's awareness).
Good Tai Chi Chuan article, well explained, not sure how much you do absorb it though. It seems that you missed two terms/practice in your Waist Steering, "Ba Bei" (#3, which is "to arch the back slightly" to maintain a minimum tension (Peng) to facilitate the use of the back muscles) and "Song Yao Song Kua" (#4, which is to "relax the waist and relax the hips"). The "relax the waist and relax the hips" is crucial, so the "back muscles" can move the hips/pelvis freely. But you do tighten up the abdomen and use the iliopsoas to do your Waist steering?

Btw, there are two obvious typos in that article: "'an' Xia Xiang Sui" (#6) should be "'Shang' Xia Xiang Sui," and "'ei' Wai Xiang He" (#7) should be "'Li'/'Nei' Wai Xiang He."

Quote:
Thus, the "Core" and the "Waist" are synonomous,
and can be used interchangably. Someone who
would want to argue otherwise simply has just
a more limited definition of one or the other.
Really? How do you move your "core" again?

Quote:
Also, when one practices Tai Chi, the "waist"
becomes an internal component, more like
an apple core. Again, I point to muscles such
as the iliopsoas, rather than rectus abdominus
and the obliques, which are external.
Not really, whatever deals/practices with "muscles and bones" remains Wai-Gong, external practice. Nei-Gong, the internal practice, is a study as well as a practice that studies the body internal mechanism that drives those "muscles and bones," the energy that Chinese call "Qi," where "Qi," in this context, in the Western concept, is "pressure," which exhibits all fluid-dynamics properties, and operates on hydraulic principles, (as our bodies are composed with 90% of water). And the Nei-Gong practice, Tai Chi in particular, is to find out the efficient way/passage/path of the Qi flow to deliver the maximum force while using minimum resource/movements. It all begins with breathing, and Tai Chi [Chuan] uses the pressure generated by breathing--Qi--to drive the body movements. So, the inner coordination of the mind and body and breathing become the focus of the practice. The goal is "Yi Yi Shi Qi," and "Yi Qi Yong Li," that is, "use mind to direct Qi, and use Qi to drive the force (which exhibits in the arms and legs), [when you do,] to the point the movement happens merely by thinking about it; as the body performs automatically without the "direction" from mind, (yes, as a recent thread/poll calls it, unconscious competence), the body is also transparent to mind (a state which mind has no knowledge of it), the mind would have entered the state of oneness, nirvana. Yah, that's Nei-Gong.

You need to read/study some more on the second article, Tai Chi Chuan Breathing or something, but skip the "little breathing" thing, that's faltering of mind.

YMMV,
IS
post #6 of 36
Pierre,
Nice image of a bulldozer and braking with one track to cause a pivot point to occur!
To continue with that analogy, what do you suppose would happen if the outside track accelerated, instead of braking with the inside track? Pushing the outside ski forward vs. pulling the inside ski back. The skis still end up travelling at different speeds but the results are somewhat different. IMO it become a matter of tactical intent using a very similar maneuver.
post #7 of 36
JASP, as I understand it, the bulldozer is two-footed action: the inside foot is held back while the outside foot gets advanced. It's not just holding back the inside foot. The bulldozer doesn't pivot around its inside track. It pivots around a point between the tracks as the outside one grinds forward and the inside reverses.
post #8 of 36
Sound like they are going in opposite directions. Which is creating a turning effect by using a braking maneuver not by accelerating the outside track.
Maybe a different analogy would work better.
A boat with two oarsmen. One oarsman is rowing harder and producing more thrust. This causes the boat to turn without any braking. Compare this to one of the oarsman rowing backwards to cause a turn by using a braking effect.
post #9 of 36
Pierre,
After getting back on skis this weekend, I did some inventory to see if I used waistesteering and yes I do instectivly.
To take the idea of one ski faster and one slower during the turn, I feel my stance or position on my skis allows me drive, or push both skis and by rotating my inside femor, and keeping my core moving, my inside ski is turning faster and smaller radius than the outside ski, so no braking, just turning. Waiststeering allows the hip to keep up with the core and also keeps the outside ski from being "dragged" around and more under the core as it is moving. (any of this make sence?) Once the skis are released, the energy is moving into the new turn.

RW
post #10 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron White
Pierre,
Waiststeering allows the hip to keep up with the core and also keeps the outside ski from being "dragged" around and more under the core as it is moving. (any of this make sence?)
RW
Makes sense to me, Ron. It's the same sensation I get when I Waist Steer. All of a sudden the snow seems less resistive on my outside ski.
post #11 of 36
Good point Ron. It is all connected.
So while the inside ski is turning in a smaller arc and moving slower, the outside ski is traveling a longer path and moving faster. I doubt we disagree about this. It is the same concept behind allowing the drive wheels of a car to turn at a slightly different speed. How we accomplish this is what I am talking about. Either method (braking with one ski, or pushing the other forward) creates the unbalanced sum of forces it takes to cause a steering force to be created. Increased friction (drag) vs increased acceleration becomes the debate. Both have an appropriate tactical application and different results.
Both need a pivot point but it is my theory that the pivot point is outside the body for a turn of any length. Unless of course you are doing 360's. When the pivot point is closer to the body, the wider the speed difference between the skis. Braking movements would cause a shorter or closing radius turn to happen quite effectively. Sort of like grabbing a tree as we pass by it. A blocking pole plant would do much the same. For a long radius turn, or an opening radius turn, accelerating the outside ski to create a turning force would be a more appropriate tactical option because we are seeking to create the turn with maximum glide and minimum drag.
post #12 of 36
Thread Starter 
Ron and Rick do not forget that the inside ski is not as deeply bent into an arc. This creates drag at the tip of the ski if you are driving the ski efficiently or at the tail (divergence) if you are not driving the inside ski efficiently. In order for the inside ski to have no braking it would have to be bend more deeply than the outside ski since it is traveling in a smaller arc.

The inside ski may slicing a clean looking arc and my not appear to be braking but it doesn't take much. The outside ski is not exactly trying to win a speed race. Its only trying to go an incrimental distance more than the inside ski.

If there were no braking on the inside ski you, would have no way other than upper body rotation to bring the outside ski around. In the absense of inside tip braking, your skis would simply rotate around the CM instead of a point at the center of the arc radii. You would look more like you were doing the cha cha instead of skiing.

When I first started skiing this way, it felt like I was shoving the outside ski ahead and pulling the inside ski back. Now it feels like there is no brakes on a smooth crips free runing outside ski and and intentional dosiflexion of the inside ankle and tipping of the inside ski to create a slight drag at the tip. I use the core to coordinate between the inside ski and the outside ski to keep them runing their respective arcs. Pushing and pulling uses a lot more energy than intentionally using movement patterns that set up a slight braking action on the inside ski and allowing a free runing outside ski.

This all works great as long as I hit true neutral. The minute I don't hit a good neutral I am playing push and pull again to get into proper stance.

As long as I have the inside ski set up for a slight drag at the tip and have a free runing outside ski I can increase power and speed in the turn while keeping my CM more or less in the same location by more deeply dorsiflexing the outside ankle and bringing the outside hand down towards the tip of the outside ski. At high speeds this would translate into more inclination with angulation. Again though, when we are using that much inclination not finding a good neutral at crossunder leads to everything falling apart and a bunch of up and down and push pull to get back into stance.
post #13 of 36
A deeply bent ski is encountering more resistance from the snow since you are applying more pressure to bend the ski that much. Which in turn causes the friction to be greater. An active thrusting of the outside half of the body is different. It becomes a matter of additional force along the long axis of the ski being created through an internal source. WS or just thrusting it forward. Like a bike racer throwing his bike ahead of his body at the finish line. No additional drag is needed.
post #14 of 36
What happens if you waiststeer in the opposite direction of the turn you are making? I don't intend that question as a joke either. I'm curious what you actually feel on the snow if you apply the waiststeering concept in reverse.
post #15 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by onyxjl
What happens if you waiststeer in the opposite direction of the turn you are making? I don't intend that question as a joke either. I'm curious what you actually feel on the snow if you apply the waiststeering concept in reverse.
If done in a quick motion you will flatten your skis, a perfect setup for a Pivot Entry Turn (PET).
post #16 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by onyxjl
What happens if you waiststeer in the opposite direction of the turn you are making? I don't intend that question as a joke either. I'm curious what you actually feel on the snow if you apply the waiststeering concept in reverse.
I know what you're asking, onyxjl. You're asking about the sensation contrast between Waist Steering and the countering movements of PMTS.

Counter only turns feel like a battle between ski and snow in which you are a mere passenger, being passively yanked into the resultant deflection into a new course of travel. Waist Steering feels more proactive, as though you are bypassing the battle and leading the direction change yourself. It's a sensation contrast you really must experience to comprehend.

Your PMTS turns provide you with more opportunity to control the location of your lateral point of balance than do rotationally neutral Waist Steered turns. With zero counter all the Waist Steerer has to manage his lateral balance is inclination, or lateral flexion at the hip. Your PMTS counter movement will allow you to more easily have adequate outside ski pressure in slower turns, on skis with less sidecut, and at aggressive edge angles.

Personally, I think there's a happy medium. Use just enough counter as required to assign the needed pressure on the outside ski, while still allowing for the use of a WS application that powers the outside ski forward through its arc.

Waist Steering is generally a rotationally stable technique. By that I mean that the rotational orientation of the pelvis (in relation to the direction the skis are pointing), doesn't stray much through out the meat of the turn. That same rotational stability can exist whether the pelvis/core is square or countered. What Waist Steering really does is power the outside hip forward into the new direction as the skis turn under the body. My belief is that the same drag elimination benefits can be derived from WS even when moderate degrees of counter are present. It's not about what the exact rotational orientation of the pelvis is, it's more about whether the outside half is leading the charge into a new direction, or just being dragged along.

The secret is in the utilization of only the amount of counter that's needed to facilitate efficient lateral balance, and no more. Not just counter for the sake of counter. Here's a method to find the proper amount. Shoot for square, and the body/mind will usually supplement the needed amount without you even being aware. If is doesn't, you'll know it; your outside ski will lose adequate pressure, lose it's bend and track straight away from you.

Anyway, that's my current thinking.
post #17 of 36
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by justanotherskipro
A deeply bent ski is encountering more resistance from the snow since you are applying more pressure to bend the ski that much. Which in turn causes the friction to be greater. An active thrusting of the outside half of the body is different. It becomes a matter of additional force along the long axis of the ski being created through an internal source. WS or just thrusting it forward. Like a bike racer throwing his bike ahead of his body at the finish line. No additional drag is needed.
Maybe I am using terms that can be misconstrued. The way I am using the word drag and braking is not using the same as how we use it in a lesson. I am using it more in a physics kind or way. Again we are not talking about much drag.

While there is more friction on the runing surface of the outside ski the outside ski is also runing a cleaner arc. The overall resistance on the inside ski is greater or the skis would not follow the arc. You would either need to skid or not ski as tight of an arc. The outside ski naturally wants to fall back due to apparent slope not due to friction.

When you are racing both skis are on a good edge and the forces in the turn are tossing you all over the place. There will be constant push and pull on the skis to maintain stance. Waiststeering stabilizes the base so that you can push or pull the feet as needed to maintain the arcs. I will agree with this as a major play going on and it is what a skier can tune into. However, push, pull is used for continuously compensating and is not the underlaying movement pattern that drives the arcs.

Sety your racing platform aside for a moment and look at this from an entirely different angle. In order for push pull to be universal it must work efficiently at all speeds and angles. Find some nearly dead flat terrain where your speed is about 1mph, when you point the tips down the fall line and keep the skis flat. Now try your push pull secenario and see how well it works and how much energy it uses. You will likely find it useless and combersome.

Now repeat your turn by rotating the inside femur to tip the inside ski just slightly and engage the inside tip just a bit. Now its very easy to allow the outside ski to keep up and stay even with the inside ski by using very slight core tension to keep the outside foot forward.

Without the forces present in a turn, the Waiststeering concept (based soley on advancing the outside ski and pulling back the inside ski) falls apart. Waiststeering is very real and right on the money but be careful what you base the movement patterns on.

In moguls you do not what to get beat to death. In moguls you want very shallow even arcs that go where you want them to go. The best method for that is waiststeering but using a lot of push pull is going to upset the balance chart very quickly as there are no turn forces to balance against. I use waiststeering to coordinate, keep the CM in a narrow range and the ski tips fairly even in moguls.

In racing, the skis arc because there is more drag on the inside ski than the outside ski due to intentional inside femur rotation to engage the inside tip. Advancing the outside ski or pulling back the inside ski with core muscles is how you maintain coordination between the feet and adjust your stance when high forces are throwing you all over. One motion controls the arc and the other maintains it.

The push pull motions are constant and use gross muscles so this is what a skier tends to tune into. If this is what you tune into you may be ignoring the real factors that control the arc size and shape and introduce some skidding in your turns.
post #18 of 36
Right on Rick,

Quote:
Counter only turns feel like a battle between ski and snow in which you are a mere passenger, being passively yanked into the resultant deflection into a new course of travel.
We must be the driver and not become a passenger.

RW
post #19 of 36
At what point does WS(core)change towards the new turn. 3/4 through the turn?
post #20 of 36
Slider,

Quote:
At what point does WS(core)change towards the new turn. 3/4 through the turn?
Rick or Gary could answer maybe more technically, but there is only so much effective movement of the core (hip, or waist) that can happen, so if used effectivly, the core remains over and driving the outside ski which allows the turn transition to be made at any time.

RW
__________________
post #21 of 36
Quote:
Personally, I think there's a happy medium. Use just enough counter as required to assign the needed pressure on the outside ski, while still allowing for the use of a WS application that powers the outside ski forward through its arc.
This makes sense to me. What I'm a bit troubled about is that we are talking about a Waisteering Bulldozer, when we all took a pledge less than six months ago against using jargon.
post #22 of 36

Waist Steering

It's great that there's enough snow to
get people out Waist Steering.

Rick, I've been wondering about you
and your WS adventures. Very nice
posts. I'm glad you're on my team.
(Are you practicing Tai Chi?)

Pierre, I like you a lot. I'm glad you're
on the same page with us about
steering the waist. I'm a little fuzzy
on the Bulldozer, but I'm going back
to re-read this thread. Boy, would
you start to have some real fun if
you were practicing Tai Chi. I can't
find who posted it, but someone
talked about a limited range of motion
for the core/waist. This is true, until
you begin limbering up with Tai Chi
rotational exercise. I have about
three of four times the range of motion
in my waist and hips than I had two years ago.

Slider asks "at what point does WS
change toward the new turn?"

Most of the time, the bellybutton points
the direction you want to go; this is
not just "squared" to the skis, but it
rotates into and through all parts of
the turn. This is true even when you
want to flatten the ski (a pivot entry
turn, as Gary said); when your body
is in x-over/under/through, you can
point your bellybutton (sort of) toward
the next gate, but it's a different
direction the skis are pointed, thus
flattening them to slide laterally across
the snow (fall line).
post #23 of 36
Thread Starter 
TommyK, I have considered Tai Chi as a means of limbering up. Until 76 years ago when I changed diets I had all the symptoms of advance Lupus without actually having Lupus. This took its toll on flexibility. They have a place that does Tia Chi about 10 miles away.

I only have about 9 degrees of ankle flex and my back is so inflexible that I cannot put on a pair of hammerhead bindings. I cannot twist and bend far enough to reach my heels. I do know that leaving the frigin groceries alone would help.

I still love ice and moguls. Especially mixed together with trees. The techniques that I have developed do not require much up and down flexion and absorbtion.

I have not been on snow yet this year. Maybe next week.
post #24 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
I know what you're asking, onyxjl. You're asking about the sensation contrast between Waist Steering and the countering movements of PMTS.
I was pretty sure you would pick up on that Rick, but I was trying to avoid a direct comparison to PMTS because I didn't want to pit one style against the other. I would like to reconcile the two ideas without placing them in opposition, which I think your post did nicely.

I don't have nearly the understanding of either to act as an advocate. Activating my hips in the manner referred to by either WS or the PMTS counter idea is still very new to my skiing so I need a lot more mileage with it.

I need to spend some more time reading and digesting your post as well as applying the concepts, but I think I understand what you are saying.
post #25 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
TommyK, I have considered Tai Chi as a means of limbering up. Until 76 years ago when I changed diets I had all the symptoms of advance Lupus without actually having Lupus. This took its toll on flexibility. They have a place that does Tia Chi about 10 miles away.

I only have about 9 degrees of ankle flex and my back is so inflexible that I cannot put on a pair of hammerhead bindings. I cannot twist and bend far enough to reach my heels. I do know that leaving the frigin groceries alone would help.

I still love ice and moguls. Especially mixed together with trees. The techniques that I have developed do not require much up and down flexion and absorbtion.

I have not been on snow yet this year. Maybe next week.
Speaking about stiff, you should ask Tommy about what's left of my body Through Tai Chi I have been able to open up levels of movement, balance and body awareness that I would not have thought possible.

The more I practice the more I can overcome and the greater range of motion of discover in my "waist" that I previously believe to be very static.

My mom is 80 years old and starting her journey with Tai Chi (not to say this is just for the old and infirmed, quite the opposite), I expect her to reach levels even she, a complete heatlh freak never thought possible - either.

In short - its never too late to start the journey and if you can make it through the first 6 months you will be hooked for life and healthier for life.

Just ask Tommy about me - he'll tell ya
post #26 of 36
Thread Starter 
Augh he shames me with this 80yo mother.

Nolo and Ric B had me just about talked into delving into Tia Chi near the end of last season when discussion about the core were being bandied about. I have passed the half century mark so I guess its about time to do something.

Somebody compare Tia Chi to Yoga. Which one is better to gain some mobility.
post #27 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
Augh he shames me with this 80yo mother.

Nolo and Ric B had me just about talked into delving into Tia Chi near the end of last season when discussion about the core were being bandied about. I have passed the half century mark so I guess its about time to do something.

Somebody compare Tia Chi to Yoga. Which one is better to gain some mobility.
Make no mistake about it, though the movements are slow, for the most part, Tai Chi IS A martial art. A moving meditation and alignment of all facets of your body and mind.

I believe that super flexibility is not necessary to be a great skier, but having incredible awareness of the body in motion is - you will get this from Tai Chi. I do not pratice Yoga but worked radically on my strecthing in my competitive martial arts days. Today, being over the half century mark, broken neck (repaired with a 4 level J & J Surelock and eight screws), totally dessicated L4/L5 Disc, working on stretching the way I used to would be counter-productive. I can increase my practical flexibility and ROM with Tai Chi and not ever risk more injury. Not so sure with Yoga and I know in typical martial art system stretching I would be at grave risk.

Tai Chi allows me to ski race and not place myself in undue danger due to its considerable benefits. This season should bear that out, once again.
post #28 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo
This makes sense to me. What I'm a bit troubled about is that we are talking about a Waisteering Bulldozer, when we all took a pledge less than six months ago against using jargon.
How about WS D-9 Cat turns instead? O.K. it was a bad joke....
post #29 of 36
I tried using the image of a skid steer loader last year, and was surprised how few people know what that is.
post #30 of 36
How about a zero-turn riding lawnmower?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Waiststeering Bulldozer Turn